I was camping with a girlfriend at the time.. Had trouble sleeping so woke up and put my walkman radio on with my headphones to hear the news. Didn't really have an opinion so went back to sleep. Woke up the next day and as my girlfriend was waking up I told her that I had a really vivid dream that someone famous died in a car crash. She went off to the communual showers and came back convinced I had been given some kind of unearthly premonition. Never did tell her the truth.

As for the funeral, emotions are contagious. They weren't crying over Diana. They were all crying because it was the first time in years they had all been out around thousands of other people and felt comfortable with letting loose a few tears in front of strangers.

They probably all went home and felt quite good after it._________________SAPERE AUDE

Diana's assasination is one of the biggest events of the modern era.
It is not altogether clear who was responsible but everyone from Jesuits to CIA and M15 may have carried it out.
The motives are crystal clea.
Diana was about to follow up her campaign against landmines by coming out publically in favour of the plight of the Palestinians. Diana was in all probability about to marry Dodi Al FAyed, a muslim, and was possibly pregnant by him. She had previously been in a 2 year relationship with a Dr Khan also a muslim. Her best friend Jemima Goldsmith had announced she had converted to Islam.
So it was a good bet that Diana may have come out as either a muslim or at the very least her child, the brother or sister of the future king William, will have been a muslim.
Ths would have created a wave of her fans worldwide joining her and converting. Much in the same way that several million black americans had converted following Mohammed Ali.
There are many historic precidents for this occurance.

So the zionist movement wqould consider her an active enemy. The Catholic church would have considered her a potential loss of millions of members. And the CIA/M15 would have considered the ongoing war against Islam as much harder to prosecute with such a high profile ambassador.

31st August 1888 - first of 'Jack the Ripper' Murders - carried out, IMO and according to Stephen Knight in 'Jack the Ripper - The Final Solution' by the Masons to protect the Royal Family from scandal.

31st August 1997 - Princess Diana murdered - IMO by the Masons for the same reasons, to protect the Royal Family._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

With recent allegations regarding MI6 and the SAS and the death of Princess Diana, here is an article written 2008:

Michel Chossudovsky, 14 February 2008

Diana inquest: MI6 ‘plotted tunnel murder’

By Nick Allen

Daily Telegraph. 13 February 2008

" MI6 plotted to murder Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in a staged car accident in a tunnel five years before Diana, Princess of Wales died in a similar crash, a renegade former spy has told the inquest into her death.

Diana murder probe costs taxpayer £6m All the videos, pictures and testimony from the Diana inquest Richard Tomlinson, who worked for MI6 in the early 1990s, told the High Court he had seen a two page document, drawn up in 1992, detailing three plans to kill Mr Milosevic.

One plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur The first involved using a Serb opposition paramilitary group, which was regarded as being the most “deniable” method.

The second involved using the “increment” – a small group from the SAS or SBS – to infiltrate Serbia and kill Mr Milosevic using a bomb or sniper ambush.

A third plan was to use a strobe light to blind Mr Milosevic’s chauffeur as his cavalcade passed through a motorway tunnel during peace talks in Geneva.

Mr Tomlinson said the plan was shown to him by a senior MI6 officer referred to as “A” who argued that a crash in a tunnel would mean fewer witnesses and a greater chance it would be fatal.

The former MI6 officer also said he had been shown a strobe light by members of the SBS during his training in Poole, Dorset.

He was told that the equipment, which was portable, was intended for blinding enemy helicopter pilots as they tried to land at night.

Mr Tomlinson gave evidence on a video link from Marseilles.

advertisementHe was called as a witness to the inquest after he told a French magistrate that the Paris car crash which killed the Princess, Dodi Fayed and chauffeur Henri Paul on Aug 31, 1997, bore an “eerie similarity” to an MI6 plot.

He told the inquest that “A” was a “very ambitious and diligent” MI6 section sub-head, aged in his early 30s.

He is referred to as “Fish” in Lord Stevens’ police inquiry into the crash. Mr Tomlinson said “A” showed him the plan in his office on the 11th floor of Century House.

It gave a justification for murdering Mr Milosevic because of his plans for a greater Serbia, a feared genocide of Albanians in Kosovo and his support for Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader.

The circulation list for the document included the private secretary to the head of MI6. “There was no doubt in my mind that A was entirely serious about his plan,” Mr Tomlinson said.

“He was an ambitious and serious officer who would not risk his career by making such a proposal in jest.”

Counsel to the inquest Nicholas Hilliard said “A” had revealed there was a document, written in March 1993, about someone else in the Balkans, not Mr Milosevic, and that it was a “contingency plan”.

The other figure was not named but among the likeliest targets would have been the warlord known as Arkan.

Mr Tomlinson also suggested that Henri Paul was passing information to MI6. When he was reading files on an operation to smuggle weapons out of the Soviet Union he came a across details of an unnamed French security officer at the Ritz Hotel who he later concluded that it was Mr Paul.

“There is no doubt Henri Paul would have been of interest to the intelligence services,” he said.

Mr Tomlinson said MI6 paid many people for information or access on an ad hoc basis including a member of the paparazzi and a barrister.

Mr Tomlinson was recruited by MI6 in 1991 after graduating from Cambridge University with a First Class degree in aeronautical engineering.. He was sacked in 1995 and jailed under the Official Secrets Act in 1997 after passing a proposal for a book to a publisher.

His book The Big Breach was eventually published in Moscow in 2001 and now lives in France.

Daily Telegraph 2008_________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

THE elite special forces officer behind a new claim that Princess Diana was killed by the SAS should be accepted as a credible witness, an expert on the circumstances of her death said last night.

By: Giles SheldrickPublished: Sat, August 24, 2013

he explosive new allegation that the Princess was killed by crack SAS soldiers acting on orders from MI6 emerged with the disclosure of a letter written by the officer’s mother-in-law. In it she claims he told his wife his crack unit “arranged” Diana’s death.

After extracts of the letter were published earlier this week, the officer was branded a “loose cannon” whose word could not be trusted. But now leading investigator John Morgan has come forward to insist the SAS man, known as Soldier N, will emerge as a “witness of truth” and that his allegations will be proved correct.

The author spoke out after the dramatic new allegation forced the Met Police to contact Prince Charles to notify him of their interest. It has prompted widespread calls for a fresh inquiry.

The seven-page letter by Soldier N’s mother-in-law was written around the time his marriage collapsed in September 2011. In the letter, the mother-in-law says Soldier N also boasted about killing women and children. She claimed he once threatened to “make his wife disappear”.Despite suggestions that Soldier N’s claims cannot now be relied upon, only weeks earlier he was regarded as a credible “witness of truth” whose sworn testimony was believed by the military tribunal that convicted his former housemate and fellow SAS sniper Danny Nightingale of illegally possessing a gun and ammunition.
Mr Morgan said: “One of the most interesting aspects is that the British authorities have known about this for two years.

“The letter from the mother-in-law of the SAS soldier was sent in September 2011 and its only now in August 2013 they are starting to look into it – it shows they don’t take this sort of thing seriously.

“The allegation is that Soldier N told his wife the SAS were involved in the assassination of Princes Diana and it’s been covered up. Does he dream it up out of thin air? I don’t think so. It’s hard to believe he would be making this up.

The truth will eventually come out, just not while The Queen is still alive. Prince William will want to know what occurred and he will be pushing for a proper investigation
Mr Morgan
“The other factor is that it does fit with overall picture of the evidence. There is substantial evidence that shows MI6 involvement in the assassination.”

Australian Mr Morgan, who has who has written a series of books on Diana’s death, said it was well documented that MI6 – now known as the Secret Intelligence Service – employed SAS operatives on secret missions abroad.

He said it was possible SAS assassins were disguised as motorbike riders following the car Australian Mr Morgan, who has who has written a series of books on Diana’s death, said it was well documented that MI6 – now known as the Secret Intelligence Service – employed SAS operatives on secret missions abroad.

He said it was possible SAS assassins were disguised as motorbike riders following the car in which Diana 36, and her lover Dodi Fayed, 42, the son of Mohamed Al Fayed, were killed. Their Mercedes crashed into a concrete pillar in the Pont de l’Alma underpass in central Paris on August 31,1997.

A jury in the 2008 inquest into their deaths blamed their driver, Henri Paul and paparazzi photographers following them on motorcycles. In his inquest summing up Lord Justice Scott Baker said there was not a shred of evidence to support conspiracy allegations. Operation Paget, a subsequent Met Police inquiry also concluded that the deaths were an accident.

Mr Morgan said: “The truth will eventually come out. It (just) won’t come out while The Queen is still alive. (Prince) William will want to know what occurred and he will be pushing to have a proper investigation.”
Last night a Yard spokesman said the Met was “scoping information recently received and assessing its relevance and credibility” but stressed it was not a re-investigation.

Related articles_________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

BRITISH spies would have recorded the last moments of Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed by bugging their mobile phones, it is claimed.

By DONAL MACINTYRE EXCLUSIVE
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Sun, Sep 15, 2013

694

41
Diana using her mobile phone while in Sardinia in August 1997 the month she died Diana using her mobile phone while in Sardinia in August 1997, the month she died

A key UK security industry source who served in the military told the Sunday Express that GCHQ remotely switched on recorder modes right up to the moment the couple took their fatal Paris car trip.

If made public, the phone recordings could help throw light on sensational claims by former SAS serviceman Soldier N that Diana was murdered by an SAS assassination squad.

The bugging claim came as a separate Sunday Express investigation revealed that film footage of Diana’s last hours was “kept secret”. An exhaustive inquiry in the French capital has confirmed the existence of CCTV records of the night Diana died in August 1997.

Many belong to private companies who used France’s strict privacy laws to avoid having to hand them over to the police.

Just as crucially, a key traffic camera overlooking the scene of the crash in the Alma Tunnel was said to be switched off or malfunctioning.

However, one operator contacted 16 years on said: “Images would have been available if people wanted them to be. The truth is that every excuse possible was made to make sure that live film could be kept secret.

“This suited lots of powerful people, especially those who wanted to dismiss the crash as a simple traffic accident.”

The operator, who asked not to be identified because he “fears for my safety”, said he was convinced that all available film was “rounded up and hidden or destroyed”.

Military sources have claimed Diana’s driver, Henri Paul, was blinded with an intense flash of light forcing him to lose control of their Mercedes on an underpass after leaving the Ritz hotel.

diana car crash wreckThe wreck of the Mercedes that Diana was in as it crashed in a Paris underpass

An exhaustive inquiry in the French capital has confirmed the existence of CCTV records of the night Diana died in August 1997
Now the security source, a specialist operative who has engaged in “black ops”, is alleging that Diana’s phone was accessed remotely, even when switched off.

“There is no doubt that this technology was used on Diana and all around her, and for very human reasons she was regularly listened to live in the moment,” said the source.

GCHQ operatives spent a great deal of time recording and listening live because she was a priority intelligence target and a direct threat to the Crown, he said.

“More than that, she was an icon and the most famous woman in the world at the time and analysts are vulnerable to curiosity as much as anyone else and would have wanted and had the capacity to listen live to the conversations in the car as it sped away from the Ritz.”

As well as these claims, there are suspicions that CCTV cameras were tampered with on the night of the crash.

diana driver crashDiana in the back of the car with driver Henri Paul (right) who is said to have been dazzled

Pascal Poulain was the commander of the Paris Information and Control Centre which was ultimately responsible for the Alma Tunnel camera that night. Interviewed by British investigators, he said: “In view of the scale of the accident, we tried to see the scene of the accident, using the camera situated at Place de l’Alma.

“That was impossible. In fact the screen showed only a blurred yellow light. We tried to manipulate the camera, that is to use the zoom and manoeuvre it, in vain. We did not have the control.

“By that I mean that another section must have been using the camera and manipulating it and must have not released it.

“It had remained under remote control on another section’s control panel. But it could also have been due to it being out of order.”

IN PICTURES: DIANA PRINCESS OF WALES

Speaking further about the crash, Mr Poulain said that any order to record images taken by the camera would have to have been taken “at the highest level of authority and not by a police officer”.

A spokesman for Paris Urban Traffic Units said they stopped using the camera at 11pm, around an hour and 20 minutes before the crash. In the late Nineties, police officer Eric Gigou led a team given the task of collecting all CCTV images on the route from the Ritz to the Alma underpass.

Related articles
Have we been told the truth over what really happened to Princess Diana?
Army slated for not taking allegations of SAS-aided Diana death seriously
EXCLUSIVE: How David Cameron knew of Princess Diana 'murder plot'
EXCLUSIVE: SAS’s lamping unit 'used laser to dazzle Princess Diana's driver'
Many belonged to private businesses including hotels and restaurants, as well as a government department, which said that the cameras were facing away from the road, making the film useless.

In an official report, Lieutenant Gigou wrote: “The surveillance cameras on the private and public buildings along the route are only trained on the fronts of the buildings they protect.”

For this reason, and the fact that many of the private companies objected to anyone seeing the film, the CCTV images were not made available.

Lieutenant Marc Monot, of the Paris Criminal Brigade, said he visited the Ministry of Justice building next door to the Ritz and requested to see their CCTV footage.

According to the same official papers, “he reported that there were no images that contributed to the inquiry because cameras were positioned on ledges and did not provide any discernible detail”.

Sunday Express front pages highlight new twists

The use of the vague term “discernible detail” has particularly concerned those who think Diana may have been targeted by assassins, especially as it has effectively been used to keep the footage a secret.

Another part of the mystery is that the Mercedes Benz S-Class involved in the crash had been stolen from a restaurant several months earlier.

It was found after two weeks in a Paris suburb with some small but very specific electronic parts missing.

The parts came from devices within the car’s Electronic Management System and were found to control the electric windows, power steering rack and the anti-lock braking system._________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

Your link doesn't work.
Best to just search:
'DONAL MACINTYRE INVESTIGATION: 'Spies taped Diana's crash and bugged her phone''_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Yes, this one is really blowing up
Wonder what Phil the Nazi makes of it all?
Particularly excruciating for William & Harry.
That'll be Phil's fault then for behaving as if he's a medieval despotic monarch.
Donal Macintyre:
MI6 taped Princess Diana's crash & bugged her phone:
http://t.co/hU2IIt6pxI_________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

Daily Express Monday Sept 16th 2013 - More allegations about alleged plot to kill Diana. The Daily Express is putting up the pressure for the police to re-pen the case. Will the truth finally come out? or will it just be a cover up again?

Quote:

The latest extraordinary details of the alleged plot have been recounted by the ex-wife of former SAS sniper Soldier N.
She has said he told her he knew all along that his colleagues were responsible for her death. But the soldier sought to justify it to her by saying: “It’s an order, a job’s a job.”
According to the sniper’s ex-wife, he told her Diana was allegedly murdered alongside her Muslim lover Dodi Fayed when a piercing light was shone directly at the car they were travelling in.
Now divorced, the soldier’s ex-wife was interviewed by Scotland Yard detectives last month and she told them that her former husband decided to confide all to her after taking Prince William, then 26, on an advanced driving course in 2008.
He told his wife he already knew of the alleged plot to kill her, but a face-to-face encounter with the young prince convinced him to open up to his wife for the first time.
During her police interview she is said to have told police: “We were talking about it (the driving course) and I was saying how lovely it was that Princes William and Harry were doing so well and that it was sad their mum wasn’t here to see it.
“Then he said to me one of the guys was responsible for the accident, for the death of Diana. I was shocked. I believed what he said.
“He went on to tell me that it had to be done in a tunnel, that people had been monitoring them (Diana and Dodi)...a light was shone in the driver’s eyes.”
And during the chat between them he also spoke about the top secret unit’s apparent ambivalence towards Diana’s death. She said: “When I asked how anyone could do something like that he said, ‘It’s an order, a job’s a job’.
“He said that it had to happen in the tunnel to guarantee death. He said that it looked bad so they left.”

_________________"injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther king

another unexplained death on the horizon?_________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

Yep, Express still pushing it. There are a few other Princess Di articles on the same page.

In my opinion, they used a belt and several pairs of braces: strobe light, 'Boston Brakes' and the 'coup-de-grace' in the slow, slow ambulance.
I have also read somewhere that Di's seat-belt was stuck and unusable._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Both Diana and Dodi were not restrained by their seatbelts at the time of the crash prompting some to suggest that they may have been sabotaged. French investigators declared all the seatbelts operational in 1998. Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005 found that all the seatbelts were in good working order bar Diana's, although it is thought that the damage took place after the accident...'

Yes, 'it is thought that the damage took place after the accident'.. Indeed!! 'It is thought...!!'

'..Analysis of the wreckage of the car after its repatriation to England in 2005..' Hmmm, I wonder why it took so long to get the car 'repatriated' (???) to England?_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Diana, cause of accident: due to the immediate and intense world-wide interest in our Diana - Cause of Death - old web page (http://www.senderberl.com/diana.htm), we thought it fitting to bring forth further points to ponder…':
'Why did Trevor Rees-Jones put on his seat belt just prior to the accident when Princess Diana, a devoted user of seat belts, did not? Why were two motorcycle policemen told to leave an ambulance taking one hour to reach a hospital, when 10 surgeons and an army of medical specialists were awaiting Diana's arrival? Is Henri Paul's behavior prior to the accident significantly inconsistent with published intoxication results? Why was there misinformation that the Mercedes was armor plated, supporting the further false assertion that it took emergency crews one hour to extract Diana from the car? Why did the French government reject the aid of Daimler Benz? Why didn't the Fiat stop and the driver and its occupants, if any, join the line of those seeking to file suit against the Ritz hotel? Why wasn't Diana put on a heart-lung bypass machine?..'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Millionaire photographer James Andanson had been threatening to write an explosive book.

But Andanson, who had links with the Secret Service, died mysteriously after meeting author Fredieric Dard to discuss the book that would “blow the lid off a conspiracy”.

He was found in a torched car with two bullet wounds in his head, but the authorities ruled it was suicide.

In a bizarre twist, Frenchman Dard also died within a few weeks of their meeting. Last night top investigative writer John Morgan and friends of Mohamed Al Fayed urged police to reopen the investigation into Andanson’s death in 2000.

Aussie-based Morgan, who has written nine books about Diana’s death, is convinced Andanson “is a vital area” of inquiry for police...'

Princess Diana 'murder' author receives chilling death threats

ROYAL author Brian Watson received chilling death threats after claiming Princess Diana’s fatal crash was caused by assassins, he revealed last night:

'The biographer says he was about to make his theory public when he got a phone call telling him: “Drop the idea if you value your family’s life.”

Mr Watson had planned to release a documentary film after his research convinced him that killers used a remote control device to take over the steering of Diana’s Mercedes and deliberately crashed it into a Paris tunnel pillar.

But after sending film studios the script for his movie Who Killed The Queen Of Hearts? the writer received the deadly threat, he claims.

“I recieved a phonecall saying: 'Drop the idea if you value your family’s life'”
Brian Watson
Now fears his admissions to the Daily Star could endanger his life again. He revealed: “I said to my co-writer: ‘Have I got too close to the truth?'”

Mr Watson believes assassins were following the Mercedes in a white Fiat Uno, which was seen by several witnesses but has never been found.

He says the killers tampered with the Merc’s computer to gain control, then followed her last journey across Paris before using the remote to smash the car, killing Diana in August 1997.

Mr Watson, a former advertising exec from Surrey, even researched how such a system could be installed. He said prior to the crash, the computer system was stolen from the Merc, which was off the road for two weeks.

“So I phoned up my local Mercedes dealership and asked how long it would take to put a new one in. They said about half an hour or so. Then I asked if you could perhaps control the car with the right computer. He said: ‘Yes, you could.’ When I told him why I was asking him he went cold.”

I suspect both methods were used, 'Boston Brakes' and an extremely bright strobe light.
And the French police MUST have known that the paprazzi used scooters rather than heavy motorbikes...yet kept up the charade._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

German publisher Kopp Verlag has translated and published the Paris-London Connection book. Entitled Die Paris-London-Connection: Wie Geheimdienste die Ermordung von Lady Diana geplant und durchgeführt haben, Kopp has opened up the German market and several thousand hard-cover copies have sold since the launch late last year.

An anonymous supporter printed a poster last month advertising the latest book How They Murdered Princess Diana … and attached it to the wall of Buckingham Palace – photo attached.

This article appears in the February 13, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
AMIDST NEW SCRUTINY OF CHARLES’S SAUDI TIES
British Royals Feel Heat
Over Diana’s Assassination

by Robert Barwick

[PDF version of this article]

Initial British press headlines about Jon Conway’s play Truth, Lies, Diana, which opened Jan. 9, 2015 in London’s West End, chiefly highlighted its strong insinuation that Prince Harry was fathered not by Prince Charles, but by James Hewitt, one-time lover of Harry’s mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. That soap-opera aspect of the drama, however, is not what is most likely to have sparked hysteria at Buckingham Palace.

Far more explosive for the British monarchy, is the play’s presentation of the investigation by Australian researcher and author John Morgan into the Aug. 31, 1997 deaths of Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, in the crash of their car in the Pont d’Alma road tunnel in Paris. Morgan has assembled and published evidence in support of the charge that the Queen ordered the assassination of Diana, and that the British foreign intelligence agency MI6 carried it out. Conway credits Morgan with inspiring his play, even working him into the script as an adviser to the investigator (played by himself) who is the central character.

After the show had started its run, major press in the U.K. acknowledged that its main subject was, as The Times wrote on Jan. 15, an “attempt to get to the bottom of the murky events in Paris in August 1997,” using the results of new research. Calling it “a little David of a play that the Goliath of the Establishment would probably rather didn’t exist,” Domenic Cavendish wrote in The Telegraph, “The picture formed gives an unnerving amount of plausibility to those who maintain that MI6 were involved and that there was a cover-up.... I think [the play’s] heart is in the right place, trying to do justice by ‘the People’s Princess.’ ”

Truth, Lies, Diana had been showing off-Broadway for a year. Conway has said that he took it first to New York, out of apprehension about reactions in the UK. He was emboldened to bring it to London, however, by a new eruption of opposition to the British Royals within the UK itself. This has been caused not only by multiple scandals implicating the degenerate royal family, but also by the British Crown’s crucial role in war-mongering and international terrorism. The wave of openly expressed disgust with the Royals is rising toward levels as high as in 1997-99, immediately after Diana’s death.
Storms Over the House of Windsor

First and foremost is the ties of Charles, heir to the throne, with the Saudi sponsors of Wahhabite terrorism worldwide. With momentum building in the United States for disclosure of the 28 suppressed pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerning the relationship of the Saudi royal family to those crimes, Charles cannot escape attention to his Saudi connections: Not only did Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the USA in 2001 and undoubtedly a subject of the 28 pages, pour tens of millions of dollars into Charles’s private “charities” and the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (known as “Charles’s OCIS,” because of his active patronage), but Charles himself negotiated mega-deals within the Anglo-Saudi arms trade.[1] Bandar’s brother-in-law Prince Turki bin Faisal, who resigned as director of Saudi General Intelligence 10 days before 9/11, is a member of the OCIS Board of Trustees and chairs its Strategy Advisory Committee. The pair were among only eight foreign royals whom Charles invited to his wedding to Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005. Both are named in the 4,000-page lawsuit filed on Feb. 4 in New York by the families of 9/11 victims. [See article in National—ed.]

Already in 2005, a book co-authored by British former prisoner of the Saudi regime Sandy Mitchell pointed out that “Prince Charles’s relationships with prominent House of Saud members have created serious problems and obstacles to UK agencies investigating claims of Saudi financing of international terrorism, according to Special Branch sources,” citing how lawyers for 9/11 families encountered such a stone wall on a visit to the UK in 2003.[2]

Outrage at the Windsor-Saud connection is now spreading. Human rights activist Joan Smith, for example, blasted Charles in a Jan. 25 column in The Independent, for “sucking up to the Saudis.” She cited the role of “Saudi Arabia, with its two-faced royal family,” in “the 9/11 attacks, Madrid, the 7/7 bombings, the kidnapping of the Chibok girls [and] the massacre at Charlie Hebdo.”

Charles is feeling the heat. A new biography of the Prince of Wales claims that he “no longer wants to promote UK arms sales in Gulf States,” according to the BBC on Feb. 4.[3] And with Charles visiting the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, yet again on Feb. 6-12, Clarence House (his residence) issued a defensive-sounding statement that “the Prince of Wales’s return to the region only one year after his last tour demonstrates the importance that Her Majesty’s Government places on its association with key partners in the area. These connections are underpinned by the long-standing and respectful relationships which exist between the Royal Family and the ruling families in the Gulf.” The BBC reported that a spokesman followed up with a pre-emptive denial of new arms deals, saying: “The Prince of Wales’ upcoming visit to the Middle East is not about sales of defence equipment.”

In other developments potentially contributing to the fall of the House of Windsor:

Revelations about a pedophile ring operating in high society, including within Buckingham Palace, continue to rock the UK. At the same time, Catherine Mayer’s biography has drawn attention to the status Prince Charles accorded the late Jimmy Savile—a TV personality and notorious pedophile (exposed as such only after his death in 2011)—as friend, confidant, adviser, and even “key aide,” as one newspaper account put it. A 2013 Scotland Yard report cited abuse by Savile “on an unprecedented scale,” shown in complaints by 450 people, covering the period 1955-2009 and victims aged 8 to 47.

Sworn testimony is sought from Prince Andrew, fifth in line to the throne, in a sexual abuse claim against convicted child-abuser Jeffrey Epstein by a victim who testifies she was pimped to Andrew by Epstein, his friend, when she was a minor.

Charles’s “fury” over a BBC documentary called “Reinventing the Royals,” was widely reported. It concerns the PR campaign waged after Diana’s death to get the public to accept Charles’s longtime mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, as his next wife. Scheduled to air on Jan. 4, the program was pulled because Clarence House refused to provide archival footage. After an uproar over Charles’s heavy-handed intervention, the program is now supposed to air on Feb. 19.
A Challenge to the Throne

Diana’s death, and the cover-up and suppression of evidence during its investigation, remains the biggest scandal of all. The crux of the matter, and of John Morgan’s impressive dossiers, is not the sad personal drama of the Princess of Wales as such, but the allegation that she was killed for challenging the very institution of the Crown.

After her separation from Charles in 1992, it was openly discussed in Britain whether Diana, the beloved “People’s Princess” and mother of future King of England Prince William, had the power to reshape the Windsor dynasty in a more human direction, as she herself proclaimed to be her goal, or even to bring it down altogether, as was publicly talked about by prominent British Establishment figures at the time. While the Queen herself had carefully maintained an image of being “above politics,” her consort, Prince Philip, was already widely despised as arrogant, and as a notorious racist with family connections to the Nazis, even by those unfamiliar with his expressed desire to be “reincarnated as a deadly virus in order to help solve the population problem.”

The publicity around Conway’s play puts the Windsors’ enmity for Diana back in the spotlight. Like the ghost of the murdered King of Denmark who stalks the parapet in Hamlet, Diana’s spirit wields the power to shake the Windsor throne. Half of all Britons still today regard her death as “suspicious.”

Conway and his colleagues are convinced that if the 2007-08 Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) inquest into the deaths of Diana, Dodi, and their chauffeur, Henri Paul, were held today, there would be “a totally different verdict,” because of Morgan’s work as well as the growing public recognition—thanks to the revelations by Edward Snowden and others—of malfeasance by top government institutions, especially the intelligence agencies.[4]

Amplifying the appearance of “Truth, Lies, Diana” was a Jan. 14 commentary on the play in the Daily Mail (readership 40 million), by the tabloid’s Investigations Editor Sue Reid. She wrote, “I have also investigated the events that led up to the crash and what happened afterwards. I have spoken to eyewitnesses, British and French police, MI6 officers based in Paris that night, friends of Diana and Dodi, and hospital medics in the French capital who tried to save her life. Despite the official line that the crash was a terrible accident, many are still convinced she was killed ... and that shadowy figures in the British Establishment have covered up the truth.” Even in this short article, Reid set forth abundant evidence for both charges.[5]
A Forensic Investigator’s Approach

Like Sue Reid, playwright Conway did independent research, as well as studying John Morgan’s work. These investigations have revisited all the issues brought out in EIR’s early, exclusive coverage of Diana’s murder—evidence-tampering; the almost two-hour delay in taking Diana to a hospital, whereas she likely would have survived the car crash with prompt treatment of her internal injuries; fakery in the claims that driver Henri Paul was drunk or speeding; the role of a Fiat Uno car and unidentified motorcyclists around and in the d’Alma Tunnel; the blinding of Paul by a flash of light in the tunnel; and the role of intelligence agencies, especially Britain’s MI6.[6]

The thousands of pages of documentation assembled by Morgan, and published in 11 volumes, treat all these issues, and more. Morgan brought to the project his professional experience as a forensic accountant, that is, a career of dealing not only with minute detail, but with issues of evidence-handling and court admissibility. In addition, Morgan’s research has been informed by leaks from dissident sources within the British Establishment, enabling him to examine previously suppressed evidence.

Morgan’s minute-by-minute account of Diana’s mistreatment after the car crash is especially gripping. Morgan called his volume on medical evidence (Part 2 of Diana Inquest), “including deliberate mistreatment in the ambulance,” the “most distressing volume” of his 10 years of work. It evidently struck playwright Conway that way, too, as the John Morgan character in Conway’s play says at one point, “You don’t get it, do you? They killed her in the ambulance.”

From the outset, a distinguishing feature of Morgan’s work has been that he examines the evidence not only in its own right, but also through the prism of what was, and what was not, included in the 2006 findings of the official British Metropolitan Police (“Scotland Yard”) inquiry called Operation Paget, or even during the 2007-08 RCJ inquest. Those hearings were only convened, over the Crown’s bitter opposition, because of Mohamed Al-Fayed’s tireless pursuit, through publicity and legal actions, of justice for his son and Diana. The inquest, despite being presided over by a judge who swears allegiance to the Queen and who heavy-handedly directed the jury away from calling the deaths intentional, nonetheless returned a verdict of “unlawful killing,” meaning that they were not accidental, but were homicides by perpetrators unknown. “Unlawful Killing” became the title of a feature-length documentary by British filmmaker Keith Allen, which debuted at the Cannes film festival in 2011, but has been almost entirely suppressed ever since.[7]

New Zealand-born John Morgan is a longtime resident of Australia. The head of state of both countries is the British Queen. Forced by illness to retire in 2003, Morgan was prompted to look into the death of Diana upon seeing, in the book by her butler Paul Burrell published that year, a photostat of a 1995 handwritten note in which she worried that Charles was planning to have her killed in a car accident.[8] Morgan’s first book, Cover-Up of a Royal Murder: Hundreds of Errors in the Paget Report, analyzed Scotland Yard’s published report. It was followed by the six-part Diana Inquest series, published in 2009-13, and five other volumes on the case, including a 2012 synopsis titled Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana and, in 2014, How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth, a more thoroughly documented, 800-page summary of the Diana Inquest series.[9]

Diana Inquest analyzes the 2007-08 RCJ inquest, highlighting errors in its procedures and findings, as well as what evidence was withheld from the jury. Its volumes are: Part 1, The Untold Story, covering the pre-crash events at the Ritz Hotel and what happened in the d’Alma Tunnel; Part 2, How & Why Did Diana Die?, on her post-crash medical treatment and possible motives for murder; Part 3, The French Cover-up; Part 4, The British Cover-Up; Part 5, Who Killed Princess Diana?, on evidence concerning, in Morgan’s words, “the involvement of MI6 and senior British royals in the assassinations of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed”; and Part 6, Corruption at Scotland Yard. Especially Part 4, published in 2011 at the length of 722 pages, drew on a supplementary volume Morgan had issued the previous year under the title The Documents the Jury Never Saw, a compilation of documents leaked to him by a source familiar with Operation Paget from the inside, but not included in its 832-page published report.
Diana vs. the ‘Way Ahead Group’

In a bombshell interview on the BBC’s primetime Panorama program in November 1995, Diana said that by 1984, after the birth of her two sons, her three-year-old marriage with Prince Charles had gone “down the drain.” Morgan’s summary of her situation echoes the famous funeral eulogy by Diana’s brother, the Earl Spencer, about “the most bizarre-like life imaginable,” in which his sister had been caught. Writes Morgan, “She ends up finding herself living in a gilded cage, but with her every move analysed by an increasingly intrusive media.... In the end the pressure of the royal mistreatment and the public misperceptions becomes too much for her, so she decides she must tell the public her story. This is unprecedented. And that action is completely unacceptable to the Queen—it is unacceptable that a princess feels she can speak out about unpalatable royal truths.”

Morgan’s formulation is remarkably similar to one written by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, which Morgan cites: “[Diana] was radicalising [the image] of the monarchy.... For someone as acutely perceptive and long-termist about the monarchy and its future as the Queen, it must have been deeply troubling. [The Queen] knew ... that while there was a need for the monarchy to evolve with the people, and that its covenant with them, unwritten and unspoken, was based on a relationship that allowed for evolution, it should be steady, carefully calibrated and controlled. Suddenly, an unpredictable meteor had come into this predictable and highly regulated ecosystem, with equally uncertain consequences. [The Queen] had good cause to be worried.”[10]

In 1991, Diana began secretly recording interviews with Andrew Morton, whose book, Diana: Her True Story, was serialized in The Times starting in Summer 1992. The Crown’s reactions included letters to Diana from Prince Philip, described by her friends as shockingly vicious, and the formation of the so-called Way Ahead Group (WAG) on the future of the monarchy, chaired by the Queen and comprising Philip and their four children, Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. The formal separation of Charles and Diana came in December 1992, one month after the WAG’s first meeting.

Diana’s bodyguard Ken Wharfe wrote about 1992, “These were dangerous times. The knives were being sharpened for the Princess.”[11] In October 1995, shortly before the Panorama interview, Diana at least twice—once in the note to Burrell and once verbally to her lawyer, whose notes on the conversation were revealed only years later, at the inquest—expressed fear of being killed at Charles’s behest, through sabotage of her car’s brakes. The lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon, was so shocked by “the serious statements made by Her Royal Highness” in their Oct. 30, 1995 conversation that he made an unusual decision “to write this entry and to give instructions that it should be securely held.” Among other things, Mishcon recorded that Diana told him that the information about a threat to her life came from “reliable sources whom she did not wish to reveal.”[12] The next month, as Morgan cites Diana’s friend Simone Simmons, she did experience brake failure in her Audi.[13]

Describing herself as “a liability” to the Royals ever since the separation, Diana in the Panorama interview declared, “I shall not go quietly.” She vowed to play a role in raising the next heir to the throne, her son Prince William, and expressed hope of being “a queen of people’s hearts.” She also questioned Charles’s fitness to be King, saying, “I know the character, ... and I don’t know whether he could adapt” to the rigors of “the top job.”

In retaliation, the Queen promptly cancelled the BBC’s sole rights to broadcast her annual Christmas message, while Charles’s former equerry, Minister for the Armed Forces Nicholas Soames, went on national TV to question Diana’s mental stability. Prominent Establishment figures pointed to the profound issues at stake in the conflict between Diana and the Windsors, placing it on the canvas of several centuries of British history.[14] Referring to Diana’s descent from the Stuart dynasty, ousted in the Dutch invasion known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by the Hanoverians (later called the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, after Queen Victoria’s spouse Albert, and then renamed as the Windsors), The Times’ former editor Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote in the paper on Nov. 20, 1995, “Like other historic co-inheritors of Stuart PR gene, the Princess is brilliant at the kingcraft of public image building,” but Stuart brilliance “almost always ends in personal tragedy, like that of Mary Queen of Scots.”

“God Help the Princess of Wales,” was the title of a column by Germaine Greer, recounting the tragic fate of earlier Princesses of Wales at the hands of the Hanoverians. Military historian John Keegan, writing in The Telegraph of Nov. 24, 1995, warned that Diana must not “go too far,” or else “it is she who will become the casualty, not the monarchy.” British author A.N. Wilson laid out the stakes in the Nov. 25, 1995 New York Times, calling Diana’s Panorama interview “a skillfully organized attack on the institution of the monarchy itself.” If Diana were to continue, Wilson warned, “the Establishment will simply get rid of her.”

In the wake of the Panorama interview, the Queen demanded that Charles and Diana divorce. That process was completed in August 1996.
Enter the Al-Fayeds

That Diana’s view of the evil of the British Crown was deeper than merely a reaction to the flawed personalities of her husband and in-laws, was reflected in her 1994-97 correspondence with an EIR staff member, which began when she acknowledged receiving the Oct. 28, 1994 issue of EIR, “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.”[15]

The first in a series later issued as an EIR Special Report of the same title, this feature documented, including from sources within the UK, that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), co-founded in 1961 by Prince Philip and the notorious eugenicists Sir Julian Huxley and former Privy Council secretary Max Nicholson, was committing genocide in Africa through the deployment of mercenary units to stoke armed conflicts, in order to control the continent’s riches. It also showed that big-game hunter Philip and others of the WWF had contributed to the extinction of the endangered species they claimed to protect. In the final, March 1997 letter in the exchange, responding to documentation received on strategic issues (including the threat of world war arising from Russia’s devastation by “free market” reforms), Diana’s secretary wrote, “The Princess of Wales asked me to thank you for your letter of 19th February and the most interesting enclosures. The Princess was touched that you took the trouble to write following her visit to Angola [where she had been campaigning against land mines].... Your letter meant a great deal to the Princess, who has asked me to send you her sincere thanks.”[16]

In July 1997, Diana accepted an invitation from Mohamed Al-Fayed to holiday with her sons at his villa in Saint-Tropez on the French Riviera. The Egyptian-born billionaire Al-Fayed had already incurred the Crown’s wrath himself, during a protracted struggle in the 1980s and 1990s for control of Harrod’s department store in London. His opponent in the battle for Harrod’s was Tiny Rowland, a longtime MI5 agent and head, since 1961, of the Crown-linked giant multinational firm Lonrho, specializing in the looting of Africa.[17]

By the end of this holiday, during which she met Dodi Fayed, Diana had less than six weeks to live. Events unfolded rapidly. As the vacation ended, the Daily Mirror, alluding to leaks from the Royal household, wrote: “Speculation about Diana’s future, which is as strong at Buckingham Palace as it is in the Princess’s camp, comes as plans are made for the next meeting of the Way Ahead Group.... Top of the agenda at the forthcoming meeting is Diana.” Morgan suggests that that WAG meeting, held at Balmoral Castle on July 23, may have been moved up from later in the Summer, out of urgency. The Diana-Dodi relationship blossomed quickly, leading to a second Mediterranean vacation and exchanges of gifts and love letters. Diana had expressed a wish to spend time or even live in America (hoping to take her sons there), a desire that meshed with Dodi’s purchase of a house in Malibu, California.

On Aug. 30, Dodi and Diana flew to Paris from their cruise, and dined at the Ritz. That night they headed by car to Dodi’s apartment, but crashed in the d’Alma Tunnel. Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul died there, Diana at the hospital—where she was taken only nearly two hours after the crash. The morning of their deaths, Aug. 31, coincided with a second, now famous Mirror article, which reported: “At Balmoral next week, the Queen will preside over a meeting of The Way Ahead Group where the Windsors sit down with their senior advisers and discuss policy matters. MI6 has prepared a special report on the Egyptian-born Fayeds which will be presented to the meeting.... The delicate subject of Harrods and its royal warrants is also expected to be discussed.... A friend of the Royals said yesterday, ‘Prince Philip has let rip several times recently about the Fayeds.... He’s been banging on about his contempt for Dodi and how he is undesirable as a future stepfather to William and Harry. Diana has been told in no uncertain terms about the consequences should she continue the relationship with the Fayed boy.’ ”[18] Morgan devotes many pages to documentation and analysis of the inquest coroner’s failure to allow either this report, or the minutes of the WAG meetings in question, before the jury.
Evidence Withheld and Testimony Not Taken

John Morgan has examined in detail all of the above events, and more: how Diana was treated at the crash scene and thereafter, the handling of her body after death, and the subsequent investigations. Many of his conclusions are necessarily in the nature of surmise (often prefaced by Morgan with “I suggest that” or a statement that the evidence “may point to” a given conclusion), but for each case, he provides the relevant documentation. That evidence is available to readers of Morgan’s books, but the amount of it that was not heard, and the number of interested parties who were not called to testify, in either Operation Paget or the subsequent RCJ inquest, are astounding. Two instances exemplify this pattern.

Movements of key British personnel. Morgan gives extensive citations from newspaper articles, testimony, and other sources on the relationship between MI6 and the Crown, which may operate through government channels, or directly, under the “Royal prerogative power” still held by the Queen. Then, in his Diana Inquest: Part 5 compendium, he has gridded the official staffing lists of the British Embassy in Paris around the time of Diana’s death, against the inquest testimony of MI6 officials identified only by numerical designations. He found evidence identifying the officer who testified as “Mr. 4,” the chief of MI6 in France, as Eugene Curley, posted under cover as a political officer at the British Embassy. Morgan then posed a number of questions concerning the man who arrived to succeed Curley at the Embassy apparently the very day Diana died—career diplomat and intelligence operative Sherard Cowper-Coles, whose autobiography recounts his training at the Foreign Office’s Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) in Lebanon, dubbed by Egyptian President Nasser “the British spy school.”[19]

And yet, Morgan points out, no testimony from Cowper-Coles was taken at the inquest, although presiding Lord Justice Scott Baker had announced that the involvement of British security services was a major topic for review. That omission is even more striking in view of Cowper-Coles’s relationship to the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal,[20] in which Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have both directly participated.

Motorbikes/paparazzi. The presence of “other, unidentified motorcyclists, who may have cut in front of [Dodi and Diana’s] Mercedes Benz, causing the crash,” has been part of the case from the beginning.[21] The outrageous dismissal in September 1999 of all evidence concerning them, by the first French investigating prosecutor, who also dropped manslaughter charges against 10 identified paparazzi photographers who showed up at the scene minutes after the crash, drove Mohamed Al-Fayed to undertake the series of lawsuits resulting in the Paget and RCJ investigations. The latter, 2007-08, inquest jury ultimately went beyond the French attribution of all blame to “drunk driver” Henri Paul—it added that the “unlawful killing” of Diana and Dodi was also caused by the “grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles.”

There were genuine paparazzi following Diana and Dodi in Paris on Aug. 30, as there were wherever Diana went. But a handful of them were different from the usual photographers. They began swarming around Diana and Dodi as soon as they arrived at Le Bourget Airport that afternoon. The genuine paparazzi did not know the ones on powerful motorbikes, calling them “the fans.” Fabrice Chassery, one of the genuine paparazzi, told the French police that the newcomers “were behaving like madmen,” an observation buttressed by bodyguard Kez Wingfield, as reported by Morgan: “This was the first time in my experience that I had seen the paparazzi behaving so dangerously.” With six sections titled “Unidentified Motorbikes” and “Other Motorbikes” in his summary volume, Morgan presents all the testimony collected by various agencies about these suspicious vehicles. No law enforcement agency has ever followed up satisfactorily on their identity.

The CCTV cameras in the d’Alma Tunnel, which normally recorded 24 hours a day, were unaccountably turned off that night, but numerous eye-witnesses have testified to what happened as the Mercedes approached the tunnel. Daily Mail investigator Sue Reid, in her article, reminds about long-standing reports of “a powerful black motorbike, with no connection to the paparazzi,” which “emerged from a slip road and began chasing Diana and Dodi as their Mercedes was about to enter the tunnel. Fourteen eyewitnesses say it was the bike’s rider and pillion passenger who really caused the crash.” Continued Reid, “Some 15 ft. in front of the Mercedes, witnesses say, a fierce flash of white light came from the motorbike and shone straight into the eyes of Henri Paul. The Mercedes ploughed into the 13th pillar on the tunnel’s left side, instantly killing Paul and Dodi who sat in its front left and back seats respectively. Within seconds, the mystery motorbike had sped away and the two men on board have never been traced.” British and French police also claimed they had been unable to trace the white Fiat Uno, which witnesses said had bumped the Mercedes, although Morgan provides evidence that the French did trace it to photographer James Andanson, who a few years later was found dead inside a locked, burnt-out vehicle with two bullet holes in his head (the French police ruled it “suicide”).

Morgan’s books provide tables of potential witnesses, not called to testify in Operation Paget or the RCJ inquest, as well as item-by-item annotation of Paget evidence and testimony, withheld from the inquest jury. Lord Justice Scott Baker, presiding over the inquest, in his formal presentation of 20 topics for the inquiry, included the following two:

Whether and, if so in what circumstances, the Princess of Wales feared for her life;

Whether the British or any other security services had any involvement in the collision.

Despite their obvious relevance to both counts, no Royals were called to testify, only the Queen’s Private Secretary Robert Fellowes (Diana’s brother-in-law), who was later demonstrated to have lied his head off about his role in the crucial events of the hours and days following the crash.

Near the end of Keith Allen’s “Unlawful Killing” film, clinical psychologist Oliver James delivers his own verdict, one shared by many friends of Diana, as well as her high-powered enemies: that she “could have started a movement to end the monarchy.” Or, as Allen summed up, “The British Establishment think that they have got away with murder. But then, what’s new? They’ve been getting away with murder for centuries.” But, he concluded, with the murder of Diana, the Royals have gone one too far: “We may soon witness what the British Establishment fears the most—the end of the monarchy.”

[1] Richard Freeman and William F. Wertz, Jr., “Charles of Arabia. The British Monarchy, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11,” EIR, May 23, 2014; and Richard Freeman, “King Faisal and the Forging of the Anglo-Saudi Terror Alliance,” EIR, June 27, 2014, document ties between the Saudi and British Royals, particularly Charles.

[5] Sue Reid, “So is there ANY truth in the tawdry new play about Diana?”, Daily Mail, Jan. 14, 2015.

[6] EIR published 30 articles on the d’Alma Tunnel murders between September 1997 and November 2002. Many of them broke certain elements of the events and the cover-up of them, for the first time internationally. In the June 4, 1998 Daily Telegraph, then owned by the now defunct Hollinger Corporation of Canadian Conrad Black, journalist Ambrose Evans Pritchard laid the blame for all “theories” about Diana’s death at the door of Lyndon LaRouche and EIR (Jeffrey Steinberg, “New ‘Diana Wars’ in Britain Put Focus on LaRouche,” EIR, June 19, 1998). Highlights of our coverage were summarized in EIR on May 27, 2011, in articles by Jeffrey Steinberg, “Battle Royal Shattering the British Empire,” and Susan Welsh, “The 14-Year Cover-Up of Princess Diana’s Death.” Key EIR articles on the topic are listed in “Additional Reading,” below.

[7] Robert Barwick, “Suppressed Film Exposes Royal Stonewall of Diana Murder Probe,” EIR, May 9, 2014.

[8] Paul Burrell, A Royal Duty (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2003).

[9] Issued through various publishers, the volumes are listed and available on Morgan’s website “Princess Diana Death; The Evidence; John Morgan’s Investigation,” as well as through Amazon and other sellers.

[16] “Can the House of Windsor Survive Diana’s Death?”, EIR, Sept. 12, 1997. In his books, Morgan explores Diana’s anti-land-mine activity itself as another dimension of her conflict with the Royals, who are personally committed to the British arms industry, starting with the giant munitions company BAE Systems.

[17] Tiny Rowland. The Ugly Face of Necolonialism in Africa (EIR: Washington, D.C., 2003). The old London and Rhodesia Mining Company, reinvented as Lonrho in 1961 under the guidance of Crown financier Harley Drayton, has a history of tight links with the Crown’s household. On the board sat Drayton’s longtime personal assistant, Royal family member Sir Angus Ogilvy, who was married to the Queen’s first cousin Princess Alexandra of Kent. His brother David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie, was Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household in 1984-97, whose activity on the day of Diana’s death and thereafter is documented by Morgan in Diana Inquest: Part 4, along with the failure of the 2007-08 inquest to question him. Sir Joseph Ball, former head of MI5, was also active in Lonrho.

[20] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City,” EIR, June 22, 2007.

Cowper-Coles had headed the Hong Kong Department of the British Foreign Office, until the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. As Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (2003-07), he played a decisive role in 2006 in shutting down the British Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Al-Yamamah deal, which Prince Bandar had negotiated with the huge British arms company BAE Systems. Al-Yamamah generated a slush fund of $100 billion, used to finance the Afghan mujahedin networks that gave rise to Al-Qaeda. Cowper-Coles was later the British Ambassador to Afghanistan (2007-09) and the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan (2009-10). In 2007, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expelled two MI6 agents caught funding the Taliban, one of whom, Michael Semple, was a close associate of Cowper-Coles. (Ramtanu Maitra, “Does the U.S. Understand What Is at Stake in Afghanistan?”, EIR, Sept. 24, 2010, details the involvement of Cowper-Coles in the matter of British dope-promotion in Afghanistan, while also mentioning his track record with respect to Diana’s death and the Saudi arms scandal.) After leaving the Foreign Office, Cowper-Coles became a senior executive at BAE Systems. He left BAE in 2013 and is currently Senior Advisor to the CEO of another elite British company, one with a background in the narcotics trade, HSBC Group. In 2004 Queen Elizabeth made Cowper-Coles a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

Phases of Al-Yamamah, as well as other BAE-Saudi arms deals, were negotiated by Charles himself, most recently during his February 2014 state visit to Saudi Arabia. In November 2010, major British press reported on Andrew’s advocacy for BAE, as revealed in a U.S. diplomatic telegram, exposed by Wikileaks, expressing shock at how he had “railed at British anticorruption investigators, who had had the ‘idiocy’ of almost scuttling the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia.”

In February US-based Executive Intelligence Review published an extensive and significant article on royal-Saudi links, the Truth Lies Diana play and the How They Murdered Princess Diana book – entitled British Royals Feel Heat Over Diana’s Assassination.

Australian investigative writer John Morgan, who has written ten forensic books on the 1997 death of Princess Diana, has revealed he only has months to live.
Morgan, who is viewed by many as the world’s leading expert on the death of Princess Diana, has lived with the severe neurological illness Multiple System Atrophy, for the past 12 years.
In a statement released today the NZ-born author said:
“Recently symptoms of my illness have worsened considerably and I am now not expecting to live beyond the next few months.
“This month marks 18 years since the death of Princess Diana in Paris in August 1997.
“I wish to state categorically that I stand 100% by the results of my forensic investigation into the deaths of Diana and her lover, Dodi Fayed.
“I also state that after having named several people involved in the assassination and many Establishment-connected witnesses who have lied in their evidence, not one person has sought to sue me or clear their name.
"It is my sincere wish that Princes William and Harry will at some point seek justice for their mother, and that those involved in her murder – and in the subsequent massive cover-up – will finally be held to account for their crimes."

During the evening of 29 January 1999, five hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London.

Prince Charles was finally "coming out" with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.

As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a powerful Pulsed-Strobe "Less Than Lethal" optical weapon directly at the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below, the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.

Though taken from a slightly different angle, the remarkable photo shown above on the right was exposed at the exact second the Pulsed-Strobe LTL fired.

The PS-LTL is a narrow-beam weapon, and the photo clearly shows the intense blue-white glare directly on Camilla's right eye, and on the right side of Prince Charles' nose. Because the Prince had his face turned away from the weapon at the instant it fired, he escaped its neural effects.

No doubt there will be photographic "experts" out there who will claim this was merely a media flash gun. Any and all such claims can easily be disproved. The media pack was completely contained behind a barrier more than sixty feet away from the London Ritz Hotel, at which range no media flash gun ever invented can generate such an intense [and narrow] blue-white beam or pulse.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. Only three weeks after that fatal crash, I wrote to Mohammed Al-Fayed about Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapons.

This letter was sent to London by registered mail on 22 September 1997, long before any "official" reasons or misleading suggestions about the crash were published by the media:

"If this LTL system was deployed at the tunnel entrance in order to trigger a lethal event, the two-ton mass of the Mercedes colliding with a solid concrete wall at sixty mph, would have ensured lethality due to the car's inertia, which could be accurately calculated in advance.

"Although pulsed-strobe LTL by its very nature leaves little hard evidence of its use, there are indicators which might be useful in determining whether or not it was deployed at the Paris tunnel."
Before going on to examine who might have the motive and means to orchestrate the event outside the London Ritz, it might be instructive to examine how the media pack reacted to this extraordinary optical weapon at the time.

The BBC, obliged to transmit quite dangerous television footage of events at the Ritz, tried to blame it all on an over-abundance of flash guns:
"Some had been waiting for many hours to catch a glimpse of the couple. Many were tourists, and others had merely stopped to see what was going on as they made their way home from pubs and restaurants. Such was the ferocity of the flash guns, the British Epilepsy Association urged broadcasters not to transmit more than five seconds of the strobe-like effects, fearing that it would spark photosensitive seizures in some sufferers."
In fact the "strobe-like effects" had already done considerably more damage than that.

At one London TV station two editors became severely confused, and at another station, one editor became totally disorientated and collapsed across the control console. None of these personnel, or other who suffered lesser effects, had any history of epilepsy.

Working rapidly behind the scenes, The Independent Television Commission in London took a much harder line than the BBC, swiftly circulating an urgent directive to all TV networks.

The ITC warned that,
"the news footage [taken outside the London Ritz] appeared significantly to breach the ITC's guidelines on the use of flashing images," and called for subsequent broadcasts "to fall in line with the Commission's guidance notes."
In accordance with this directive, later transmissions had the footage slowed down, a fact reported openly by television networks across the world including Australia's ABC and SBS.

But despite the confusion, and the fact this was the first and only documented occasion on which television footage worldwide had to be slowed down to avoid neural damage, not one media outlet anywhere reported on the real reasons for this unique phenomena.

It was literally the scoop of the century. For the first time in history people were swooning all over the floor, and collapsing across television consoles, to the point where transmission speeds had to be altered to limit further physical and mental damage. At best George Orwell had come to town, and at worst the government's "Mind Controllers" had just turned up for work. It was a giant of a story begging to be reported to the viewers, but no one said a thing.

Are all media personnel stupid, or were they simply told to keep their mouths shut that day?

Possible motives for this deliberate event must also include the possible motives behind the deaths of Dodi Al-Fayed, and Diana, Princess of Wales. The links between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Dodi Al-Fayed overlap in several complex ways, to the point where any diligent investigator or analyst would ignore them at his peril.

The hotel name itself points to another or parallel link, which is unlikely to be mere coincidence. The Ritz Hotel in Paris is owned by Mohammed Al-Fayed, while the Ritz Hotel in London is jointly owned by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, affectionately known in London circles as "The Reclusive Twins" because they shun limelight and controversy.

So far as is known, both Sir Barclays have always left the day-to-day running of the London Ritz entirely to its own management team, so we can confidently exclude any rivalry or conflict between the hotel owners themselves. What, then? The explanation is long and may get a little boring in places, but stay with me people, stay with me. The means justify the end of this story, and the end of this story is frightening.

Throughout history, a large number of powerful men [and pretenders who seek to be powerful men] have been inexorably drawn towards symbolism and anniversary dates. You see evidence of this all around you in everyday life. American Independence Day is celebrated on 4 July each year, which serves the dual role of symbolism [Independence] and a specific day on which to celebrate it.

On the other side of the Atlantic we have the Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.

Princess Elizabeth's father, King George VI, died on 6th February 1952. As required by tradition, the new monarch acceded to the throne instantly. At no time is Britain left without a monarch. It is for this reason that the monarch's flag, The Royal Standard, can never fly at half mast even though the public expected the 'Standard' to be at half mast at the time of Princess Diana's death.

Though the Queen's Golden Jubilee is officially celebrated in June 2002, it was actually on 6 February 2002 that Elizabeth the Second completed exactly fifty years as Monarch. There are other events and dates most people forgot long ago, which can still be used subversively for more discreet commemorative purposes.

Fine so far.

The owners of the two Ritz Hotels are not involved, but we still have a highly charged and very symbolic situation. The last time any of us saw Prince Charles' estranged wife Diana alive, is when she walked out of the back door of the Ritz Hotel in Paris with Dodi Al-Fayed. The first time we "officially" saw Prince Charles' mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles, is when she walked out of the front door of the Ritz Hotel in London.

So what does it all mean, and who was really pulling the symbolic strings in this strange subliminal tableaux? To answer this we need to back up a few years to 1992-3, when suddenly and without apparent reason, a person or persons unknown started "bugging" the telephones of Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Rumors circulated by the media insinuated that Prince Charles started it all, but why on earth would he bother?

Nowadays we all know that back in 1993 and much earlier, Prince Charles had both Protestant wife and Catholic mistress, i.e. the best of both worlds, and would most certainly not upset the apple cart himself. Princess Diana also had no motive, nor did Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Whoever ordered the bugging benefited hugely in terms of undermining the credibility of the Royal Family, and eventually the London Sunday Mirror newspaper pointed the finger thus:
"The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) are holding a 1,056 page dossier made by bugging Princess Diana's phones and eavesdropping on her conversations. The CIA had mounted a surveillance operation on Diana at the request of British Intelligence Service MI6".
It would be a serious error of judgment to assume that MI6, home of the fictional James Bond, is actually controlled by the British Government. It would be an equally serious error of judgment to assume that MI6 goes out of its way to protect members of the Royal Family, because it does not do so.

Preserving national security and protecting the Royal Family are tasks handled jointly by MI5 and The Metropolitan Police Service.

More properly known by its correct title of the "Secret Intelligence Service" (SIS), MI6 was long ago penetrated by both the American Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad. For at least the last two decades MI6 has danced to the tune of the CIA, which unfortunately over the same period of history has itself been subordinate to Mossad interests.

Therefore any international agenda followed by MI6 and the CIA, has been set by the Mossad.
"Why oh why", I hear you ask, "would the Mossad be interested in harming Prince Charles, Princess Diana or Camilla Parker-Bowles?"
Once again we have to delve back through the history books for the answer, and please note here this is a serious investigation, not an "anti-Semitic" witch hunt as many Jews are sure to claim. It is documented historical fact that for many centuries, Jewish financiers effectively controlled various British Kings and Queens, by funding wars and many other ventures that the occasionally extravagant British monarchs desired.

True, every now and then a King might, and in fact did, banish them all from Britain, but overall the Jews were the undisputed winners. It was not until the early 20th Century that disenchanted British bureaucrats finally knocked them off their perch. Then the Jews lost not only financial control of the British monarchy, but also the ear of the Royal Court.

It would be realistic to claim that the biggest grudge the Jews held against Britain in contemporary times was the latter's absolute refusal to hand over Palestine as the new "Jewish State". In the end the Jewish Zionists prevailed, but it was very hard going. Thereafter the Zionist Lobbies decided to pay more attention to Britain.

The colonies had vanished one by one over the years but, diplomatically speaking, Britain was still a powerhouse.

Though the British monarch has very little real power nowadays, he or she still wields enormous influence, and Prince Charles had already displayed a desire to be the "Defender of Faiths" when eventually crowned King, i.e. not be exclusively restricted to his traditional role as defender of the Church of England.

Ominously perhaps, in late May 1996, just over a year before Diana would later be murdered in a Paris tunnel, Britain's Prime Minister John Major took the odd step of publicly disapproving of Prince Charles' stand, while at the same time cleverly exposing the fact that "faiths" in the Royal plural sense did not include Judaism.

Interviewed on BBC Television, Major described the desire of the Prince of Wales to be seen as a figurehead for all religions in Britain, including Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, as "odd" and further suggested that such a move could be interpreted as an "empty gesture". It was a performance watched very closely by leading members of the Jewish community, who collectively had very bad vibes about any "King Charles."

Back in the Middle Ages, Charles I banned the Jews from Britain, and as a result was ruthlessly pursued by Oliver Cromwell, who can fairly be described on his actions and deeds as "Britain's first Communist leader", complete with a subservient proletariat. The Jews wanted back in, and Cromwell was their man body and soul.

Eventually fate and Oliver Cromwell caught up with Charles I, who faced his execution on the 30 January 1649 at Whitehall, where he was beheaded on a specially built scaffold. Then after a respectable interlude of just a few years, Oliver Cromwell graciously and obediently allowed the Jews back into Britain. Mark the 30th January 1649 well, because something extraordinary was to happen exactly three hundred and fifty years later in London, as we will shortly see.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the modern Prince Charles' nineties stand on religion can now be seen as reckless, if not downright dangerous. In the run-up to his statement about "faiths", Charles had payed several visits to Muslim communities, while apparently ignoring Judaism. In so doing, Prince Charles opened himself up as a target for Jewish fanatics, none of whom were prepared to run the risk of being ejected from Britain all over again.

It was finally considered much better [and far easier] to discredit Charles, and thus prevent him ever ascending the throne.

Naturally enough the Zionist lobby knew all about the exploitable skeleton in Charles' closet - Camilla Parker-Bowles - because they had full control of the earlier "bugging" sequences by Britain's MI6. But if the Zionists thought Prince Charles was a big problem, they were certainly not ready for the shattering events of 1997.

Quite suddenly a catastrophe happened. Instead of continuing to hang out with a relatively harmless wet-behind-the-ears British army officer, Princess Diana started a relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, son of Mohammed Al Fayed of Harrod's fame. And if there was one man in England the Zionist lobby loved to hate with a passion it was Mohammed Al Fayed.

So intense was their hatred that for more than twenty years, members of the Lobby had prevented Mohammed Al Fayed from obtaining British citizenship, a privilege handed out on a daily basis to any illegal immigrant who bothered to knock on Britain's back door.

It became instantly obvious to the Zionist Lobby that Dodi Al Fayed could not be controlled at all. This man was not a junior British officer who could be cowed by Whitehall or by "The Firm" at Buckingham Palace, but an independent Special FX Producer from Hollywood with the full backing of his immensely wealthy father.

Though the Lobby felt confident it could "influence" or even control the rather muddled relationship between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and eventually use that relationship to undermine Prince Charles completely, the thought of a powerful Muslim influence being anywhere near Prince William or Prince Harry, drove its members to distraction.

Somehow the Zionist Lobby had to get rid of Dodi Al Fayed, and then once more arrogantly display its implicit "influence" over Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. If Dodi Al Fayed was allowed to continue his relationship with Princess Diana, and perhaps marry her, then ultimately his discreet influence over Prince William and Prince Harry could well undermine all of their careful work, and preparations to guide the future King of England and his heirs.

But how could they get rid of him?

Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was an answer to the Zionist prayers. With its driver suddenly blinded by a Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapon, and amid an appalling screech of brakes and twisted metal, the Mercedes 600 SEL carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, cannoned off the wall of the Pont de l' Alma tunnel and came to rest in the center lane. Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul were killed on impact. Princess Diana died shortly afterwards. The only survivor was bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones, though he was critically injured.

Most of Britain went into deep shock, mourning the death of Princess Diana.

Hundreds of wreaths took up acres of space outside her official residence, and every faith on earth sent a religious representative to her funeral in Westminster Abbey. Well, all faiths except one. The Chief Rabbi declined to attend, ostensibly because the funeral took place on Shabbat, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday in the Christian Church. It was odd behavior, because I can find no religious law stating that Jews may not enter a Christian Church on a Saturday.

In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a bride or queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah (come, my beloved, to meet the [Sabbath] bride).

It is said,
"more than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept Israel."
Shabbat is not specifically a day of prayer.
"To say that Shabbat is a day of prayer is no more accurate than to say that Shabbat is a day of feasting: we eat every day, but on Shabbat, we eat more elaborately and in a more leisurely fashion."
To an outsider like me, the Chief Rabbi's refusal to attend seemed more like a deliberate snub.

Over the next year or so Prince Charles fought a rising tide of public hostility, as he tried to introduce Camilla Parker-Bowles as his consort. The British people barely concealed their resentment and indeed, several conspiracies started to do the rounds that tacitly accused the Prince of being directly involved in the murder of his young wife.

There was never any direct or indirect evidence to support these preposterous claims, and over the years they died away.

Eventually, in January 1999, arrangements were made for a party at the Ritz Hotel in London, apparently to celebrate the birthday of one of Camilla's many friends. It is most unlikely that Prince Charles or Camilla Parker-Bowles decided on the date, venue or the time, because traditionally junior staff take care of such details.

Put another way, suddenly deciding to have a party specifically at the London Ritz on 29 January was almost certainly not their own idea.

The media was discreetly told to be there, and when all were in place, the Prince strode down the steps of the Ritz with Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm. Then the Pulsed-Strobe LTL Optical Weapon fired, and for a millionth of a second history stood perfectly still.

Exactly fifty years before, on 29 January 1949, the Crown had finally and very grudgingly granted diplomatic recognition to the State of Israel.

Leading Zionists in London celebrated this victory by partying all night and into the next day at the very same Ritz Hotel. Thus, unknown to the participants, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles' party at the London Ritz on 29 January 1999, marked the Golden Jubilee of the greatest single Zionist victory over Great Britain.

And as the hands of the clock slipped past midnight, and the date advanced seamlessly to the 30th January 1999, the party also marked the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I.

Exactly Where is "Kennington Palace"?

The forgers of the "Diana Letter" made far less subtle mistakes than capital letters. According to the photographs in the Mirror newspaper, Diana wrote the horrible expose on her own stationary at Kennington Palace.

Where?

When she was alive, Diana lived at Kensington Palace, a well-known royal residence.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the retired High Court judge appointed to preside over the inquest in the New Year of Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed, faces a vital question. How can she persuade Mossad to hand over its own files on the deaths?

The 200-pages of reports could cast a new light on the 1,500 witness statements and 10,000 pages of documents the Stevens inquiry has gathered in the most expensive investigation conducted by Scotland Yard into any death.

Lord Stevens has sent his ten experienced detectives on a worldwide investigation to collect evidence. But Mossad has firmly refused to give them access to their files.

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government national security adviser, who claims he has seen the files said: "They explain many things about the intelligence presence around Diana. They reinforce her own claims she was the subject of intense scrutiny by Britain's security services, the CIA and French intelligence. The American National Security Agency, NSA, was also involved with satellite surveillance on her".

Lord Stevens has interviewed John Scarlett, head of MI6, and Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director of MI5, and obtained their files which go some way to confirm Ben-Menashe's claim. NSA has also admitted it possesses some 1,050 satellite transcripts of Diana and Dodi made in the weeks before their deaths. The agency has reportedly refused to make the documents available on the grounds that "national security is involved".

Mossad was not interested in the relationship between Diana and Dodi. Their sole concern was to recruit Henri Paul, the assistant head of security at the Ritz Hotel in Paris from where he drove the couple to their deaths nine years ago last month.

The story of how Mossad set about recruiting Henri Paul began on June 29, 1997, exactly two months before Diana and Dodi died.

That afternoon a middle-aged man arrived in a Paris apartment near the Pompidou Centre in the lively 4th Arrondissement in Paris. The apartment was a Mossad safe house in the city.

His Swiss passport identified him as "Maurice Rubenstein", born in Geneva. He described himself as a "financial consultant". The details had been created by the Mossad department specialising in devising cover for its agents. Maurice was a specialist in recruiting informers.

He had come to Paris to recruit Henri Paul. To do so he was prepared to use a mixture of financial inducements, threats and blackmail.

Before coming to Paris, Maurice had spent weeks studying Mossad's file on Henri Paul. It had been opened after Jonathan Aitken, a former Conservative government minister in charge of arms sales, had built up a raft of contacts with Middle East arms dealers. Granada Television had published a damaging report on Aitken's activities. He has sued for libel. The case hinged on who had paid Aitken's hotel account when he stayed at the Ritz to meet some of his Arab contacts. In court, Aitken had sworn on oath that his wife had settled the account.

Through a third-party, Mossad had tipped-off investigators acting for the defendants that Mrs Aitken had not been in Paris. The case had collapsed. Mossad, who had long regarded Aitken's activities as a threat to Israel, had effectively destroyed him.

But Mossad needed an informer in the Ritz who would be able to report on the activities of the arms dealers. Henri Paul's responsibility for security made every area of the Ritz open to him. "There would be no questions asked if he wanted a copy of a person's hotel bill, no raised eyebrows if he asked to see the hotel's telephone log to obtain details of calls made by arms dealers and their contacts", said Ari Ben-Menashe.

"As chauffeur to VIPs, Paul would be in a good position to overhear their conversations, witness their behaviour, see where they went, whom they met", he added.

Henri Paul was a bachelor in no permanent relationship, but liked fast cars and had learned to fly. All expensive tastes outside his 31,000 euro salary.

A Mossad psychologist had concluded there was an "inherent vulnerability" about Henri Paul. The psychologist recommended that steadily increasing pressure, linked with the promise of substantial monetary reward to finance Paul's social life, could be the best way to recruit him.

Maurice had observed the relationship Paul had with the paparazzi. In return for cash, he provided details of the movements of celebrity guests.

The exchange of information for cash took place either in one of the bars or in the narrow Rue Cambon, where the Ritz staff entrance was situated. The meetings were secretly photographed by another Mossad agent who had joined Maurice.

By mid-August, 1997, paparazzi interest focused on the expected arrival at the Ritz of Diana and Dodi al-Fayed. They would stay in the hotel's fabled Imperial Suite.

Henri Paul continued to provide details of the forthcoming visit to several paparazzi. He received further sums of money.

Maurice decided the time had come to make his move.

The first contact was in Harry's Bar in the Rue Daunou. The Mossad agent struck up a conversation with Henri Paul. They arranged to meet in a few days over dinner. During the meal Paul spoke of his passion for fast cars and piloting a small aircraft. But it was difficult to enjoy those pleasures on his salary.

What followed then developed a rhythm of its own: Maurice laying down the bait and Henri Paul all too eager to take it. The hook in place, Maurice began to reel in the line.

"Maurice would have planted the idea he might be able to help, perhaps mentioning he worked for a company that was looking for ways to update its database and would pay good money to those who could help do so. This was a favourite opening gambit for Mossad recruiters on a cold-approach operation. From there, it would be a small step to tell Paul that many of the Ritz guests no doubt possessed the kind of information that would interest the company", Ari Ben-Menashe later claimed.

Another Mossad officer told the Sunday Express last week: "Henri Paul would have been on the hook".

He agreed Maurice's "undoubted skills would have the essential undertow of pressure on Paul. At some stage he would have let Paul know that Mossad had evidence of Paul taking money from the paparazzi. What Maurice would have offered was the opportunity to bolster that income".

Meantime Mossad had established the presence of MI6 and CIA agents in Paris waiting for Diana and Dodi to arrive.

"The Mossad files reveal those agents had been tracking Diana for some weeks. Their interest was to see Diana's next moves in her campaign to have landmines banned. There was huge opposition to her campaign in the United States, Britain and elsewhere", said Ari Ben-Menashe.

As the days drew closer to the arrival of Diana and Dodi in Paris, the pressure on Henri Paul increased to bug the Ritz for Mossad and provide details of the guests.

"Paul knew he could well end up in prison if he was found spying on the hotel's guests. Yet, if he went to the police what could they do? If he turned down the Mossad proposition, what then? If the hotel management learned he had already betrayed that most precious of all assets the Ritz offered -- confidentiality -- by informing the paparazzi, he could be fired, even prosecuted", suggested an intelligence source.

Henri Paul had been put in charge of Diana and Dodi's security while they were in the hotel, with particular responsibility for keeping away the paparazzi. At the same time photographers were calling him on his cell phone for information about the visit and offering large sums of money to provide details. The temptation to accept was another pressure. Everywhere he turned, there seemed to be pressure.

Though he managed to conceal it, Henri Paul was unravelling mentally. His combination of drugs could only have furthered the strain on his ability to make reasoned judgments.

On the night before Henri Paul drove Diana and Dodi to their deaths, Maurice had what turned out to be his final meeting with Henri Paul.

He threatened to expose the Ritz security man's contacts with Mossad to the service's own informers in the Arab world -- a virtual guarantee Henri Paul would be killed.

It was not the first time Mossad had used the ultimate sanction against someone who refused to cooperate.

The two men parted, leaving Henri Paul in no condition to drive his Mini -- let alone the Ritz's powerful Mercedes.

"You could say he was a dead man walking", said a Mossad source.

In Maurice's apartment near the Pompidou Centre, the agent was awoken by a telephone call on Sunday, August 31, 1997. The caller worked in the Paris gendarmerie accident unit and had been recruited by Mossad.

He said Henri Paul's Mercedes sedan had struck a reinforced concrete pillar on the westbound roadway of the underpass beneath the place de l'Alma, a notorious accident spot in the city.

The dead were Diana, Dodi al-Fayed and Henri Paul. The couple's bodyguard had been critically injured.

Hours after the accident, Maurice flew back to Tel Aviv, leaving in his wake questions that would remain unanswered.

Had Henri Paul lost control of the Mercedes because he could see no way of extricating himself from the clutches of Mossad? Was that pressure linked to the high level of prescribed drugs found in his bloodstream? When he had left the Ritz with his three passengers, had his mind continued to vacillate over what he should do about the pressure? Was he not only responsible for a terrible road accident, but also the victim of a ruthless intelligence operation?

Princess Diana crash: New book claims Queen said 'someone must have greased the brakes' after hearing news
09:09, 15 AUG 2015 UPDATED 10:07, 15 AUG 2015
BY RICHARD WHEATSTONE
A new book by royal biographer Ingrid Seward claims when the Queen made the remark after she initially heard news Diana had been injured in a crash
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/princess-diana-crash-new-book-625 5969

Shocking claims in a new royal biography claim the Queen responded to reports of Princess Diana's car crash in Paris by saying 'someone must have greased the brakes'.

Diana was killed in the crash in August 1997 - triggering national mourning and some criticism of the Royal Family's unemotional reaction to the tragedy.

A new book by royal biographer Ingrid Seward claims the Queen made the remark after she initially heard news Diana had been injured in a crash.

Seward wrote in the Daily Mail: "At first it was thought that, though the car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was serious, Diana had not been killed.

PAPrincess DianaTragic: Diana at the Ritz Hotel hours before her death
Princess Diana Car Crash WreckageShock: The crash triggered a period of national mourning
"According to one witness present when the Queen heard the initial news, she mused out loud: ‘Someone must have greased the brakes.’

"That astonishing remark reveals something of the extraordinary and complex relationship between her and Diana."

The book is also said to reveal the Queen's initial fondness of Diana before the princess' anxiousness resulted in their relationship becoming more cold.

New pictures released this week show unseen shots of Diana's wedding to Prince Charles in 1981.

Diana is also pictured alongside her new mother-in-law the Queen as she lets her hair down in Buckingham Palace but there appears to be little warmth between them.

Minutes earlier she wed Prince Charles in front of thousands of wellwishers at St Paul's Cathedral, while millions watched on TV screens across the globe.

A dozen snaps that were left out of Charles and Diana's wedding album will go up for sale at an American auction next month.

The pictures were taken by close relative Lord Lichfield, who was the only photographer allowed behind the scenes on the big day.

SplashPrincess Diana and Prince Charles' WeddingUnseen: New shots show Diana in the corridors of Buckingham Palace on her wedding day
Six of them show Princess Diana in her glorious wedding dress after the ceremony.

In two of the pictures, she is seen carrying her youngest bridesmaid, five-year-old Clementine Hambro, through the grand corridoors.

John Morgan is an investigative journalist from Brisbane, Australia who has written eight books on the death of Princess Diana of which he recommends two as particularly accessible 'Paris-London Connection: The Assassination of Princess Diana (2012)'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Paris-London-Connection-Assassination-Princess -Diana/dp/1479252107
and 'How They Murdered Princess Diana: The Shocking Truth (2014)'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-They-Murdered-Princess-Diana/dp/1505375061 /
In this 45 minute interview recorded on Thursday 15th October 2015 John Morgan dismisses the main reasons (Henri Paul drunk & Papparazi) for the August 1997 crash being an 'accident' and explains that Diana was reasonably healthy when put in the ambulance, by the time it eventually reached hospital she was almost dead and John believes she was killed in the ambulance ... in an operation conducted by Sherard Cowper-Coles of MI6 under the orders of the Way Ahead Group which includes the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. As John explains, once in a poweful cult like Diana was you can never be allowed to leave, particularly if you take up with a rich pro-Palestinian campaigner such as Dodi Al-Fayed. John's website is here http://princessdianadeaththeevidence.weebly.com/

'...The Prince himself appears in a video being used to promote the country in which he claims distant kinship with Vlad Tepes, the 15th–century Wallachian ruler on whom the Irish novelist Bram Stoker based his Dracula.

“Transylvania is in my blood,” he jokes in an interview first shown on satelite television last year. “The genealogy shows I am descended from Vlad the Impaler, so I do have a bit of a stake in the country.” ...'

But it isn't a joke; here again:

'.....According to Royal Highness, a book published in 1982 by Sir Iain Moncreiffe, the former chairman of Debrett’s, the Prince is a great grandson 16 times removed to Vlad III.

He can trace his lineage back through his great grandmother Queen Mary, the consort of George V, to Vlad IV, the half brother of the notorious ruler.

Another link to the country originated with Princess Marie of Edinburgh, a granddaughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, who went on to marry King Ferdinand 1 of Romania and ruled Romania after the First World War.

It has been claimed that porphyria, an iron deficiency which is thought to lie behind the vampire myth, has run in the Royal Family.

The Prince has made no secret of his love for Romania and is believed to travel there frequently.

In 2006, he purchased a farmhouse in Viscri, a village in rural Transylvania, which is available as a guest house at certain times of the year....'

'.... Transylvanian-born Vlad the Impaler is said to have dispatched more than 100,000 Turkish warriors in battle.

The vampire legend is said to have been inspired by his predilection for eating bread dipped in his victim’s blood. Dracula means “son of the devil” in Romanian.

The country’s alleged links to British royalty, however ghoulish, could prove a welcome boost to its tourist industry.

Thousands of tourists visit the town of Castle Bran, Transylvania, where Vlad III lived, every year......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

Speaking ahead of an exclusive video interview, Princess Diana’s close personal friend and confidant Christine Fitzgerald has gone on the record for the first time and what she has to say will send shock waves around the world.

• Christine Fitzgerald confirms Diana was ‘murdered by MI6 at the behest of the Windsors’

• Claims the Royal Family will ‘take out anyone who stands in their way’

• Says Phillip is a psychopath, and Queen Elizabeth holds a veto on decisions

• Believes the Royal Family are beginning to lose control again

...

“It was an orchestrated criminal conspiracy, a mafia-style assassination,” Christine Fitzgerald told me. “Don’t think that just because they have cut-glass accents doesn’t mean they aren’t more vicious and criminal than the mob. They ARE. They will take out anyone who stands in their way. They will do anything to keep control.”
“MI6 had been monitoring Diana for years before her death. She was surrounded by staff who were actually working for MI6, many of whom she liked and trusted. She was always second guessing herself and everyone around her, always wondering if she was paranoid.”

“She was frightened for her life for years before her death. She knew things weren’t right. We would sit together and chat and listen to Duran Duran to try and relax but it stopped working. She showed me the letter she wrote to Paul Burrell and asked if I thought she was crazy.”

“She thought that Charles had used her as a vessel to have William, and once she’d done that there were whispers among the Windsors about how to retire her from public life. They were terrified of her. Diana was a smart, sensitive girl. She could sense their fear. You wouldn’t believe some of the things she told me about Phillip, he’s a real dark psychopath. And Elizabeth… It makes perfect sense to know they killed her.”

“I have only stopped crying in the last few years. I am ready to speak now. I’m not scared. When I think of her murdered, pregnant, and embalmed I feel cold all over. Rage. I freeze. But it is time to move forward and that involves telling people what I know.”

Speaking ahead of an EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW with Your News Wire, Christine Fitzgerald revealed that she is only now ready to speak about the details of her friend’s death, and that previous interviews with her were the work of frauds.

....

Christine touches my arm and tells me I “must be very brave… and please be very careful. Strange things happen to those who know the truth. Accidents, you know? People go missing.” She points to her earrings – plain sapphire studs hanging from a string of silver, drop style – and tells me they once belonged to Princess Diana. “She gave them to me the last time we met. She hugged me for a long time. I think she knew she didn’t have long left.”

Christine Fitzgerald’s full video interview will be filmed in the next few months. Stay tuned for details.

From antisemitism cases to #Brexit. A prominent law firm Mishcon de Reya, who in 2003 did work for the Israeli embassy and Ariel Sharon against the Independent newspaper regarding a cartoon and in 08 worked on behalf of Ronnie Fraser, a further education lecturer and founding director of Academic Friends of Israel who argued that the UCU university college union- was institutionally anti-Semitic is now taking pre-emptive legal action against the UK government, following the EU referendum result to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament.
Acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied. The law firm has retained the services of senior constitutional barristers, including Lord Pannick QC and Rhodri Thompson QC.

The articles on Mishcon de Reya's work previously mentioned. .
"Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors, complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of the Embassy of Israel and Ariel Sharon that a cartoon published in The Independent on Monday 27 January 2003 was prejudicial and pejorative in breach of Clause 13 (Discrimination) of the Code of Practice. The complaint was rejected. "

...and in 2008 and again an anon group of litigants..
"The University and College Union (UCU) is facing a court threat if it doesn't retract its decision to encourage members to question the ethics of contacts with universities in Israel.
A group of as yet anonymous litigants, who are UCU members, are demanding repayment of any union funds spent on carrying out a national conference resolution which asked academics to consider the moral and political implications of their links with Israeli institutions.
Via their solicitors, Mishcon de Reya, the litigants warn UCU that they will sue its four trustees individually for recovery of the money."

They eventually, after a long drawn out process, lost the case as well.

[by email]

TonyGosling wrote:

Diana’s bodyguard Ken Wharfe wrote about 1992, “These were dangerous times. The knives were being sharpened for the Princess.”[11] In October 1995, shortly before the Panorama interview, Diana at least twice—once in the note to Burrell and once verbally to her lawyer, whose notes on the conversation were revealed only years later, at the inquest—expressed fear of being killed at Charles’s behest, through sabotage of her car’s brakes. The lawyer, Lord Victor Mishcon, was so shocked by “the serious statements made by Her Royal Highness” in their Oct. 30, 1995 conversation that he made an unusual decision “to write this entry and to give instructions that it should be securely held.” Among other things, Mishcon recorded that Diana told him that the information about a threat to her life came from “reliable sources whom she did not wish to reveal.”[12] The next month, as Morgan cites Diana’s friend Simone Simmons, she did experience brake failure in her Audi.[13]

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum